Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for 4 years the Central Intelligence Agency's program was kept from the full membership of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. For 4 years the CIA imprisoned and interrogated suspected terrorists at secret black sites under a policy that prevented Congress from not only knowing about the program but from acting on it and regulating it. For 4 years, the White House refused to brief Intelligence Committee members about the program's legal business and operations, as is required by law. For 4 years, the members of the Senate and the House Intelligence Committees, whose duty it is to authorize the funding of every CIA program, were kept in the dark by an administration which ignored the legal requirement to keep the Congress fully and currently informed on all intelligence activities. The amendment I have offered reverses the executive branch's 4-year policy of indifference toward Congress. My amendment corrects a serious omission in the pending bill: the need for Congress to reassert its fundamental right to understand the intelligence activities it authorizes and funds. My amendment would subject the CIA's detention and interrogation to meaningful congressional oversight for the first time in 4 years by requiring a series of reviews and reports that will enable the Congress to evaluate the program's scope and legality, as well as its effectiveness. The amendment establishes this absent congressional oversight in four ways. First, my amendment requires the Director of the CIA to provide a quarterly report to all members of the Intelligence Committees in both the House and the Senate detailing the detention facilities, how they are operated, and how they are used by the CIA. It requires that the detainees held at these facilities be listed by name as well as the basis for their detention and the description of interrogation techniques used on them and the accompanying legal rationale. This quarterly report also requires the recording of any violation or abuse under the CIA program as well as an assessment of the effectiveness of the detention and interrogation program. This issue of the effectiveness of interrogation techniques is incredibly important and often overlooked as an aspect of the debate over the CIA program. Interrogations that coerce information can produce bad intelligence--not necessarily, but they can produce misleading intelligence--fabricated intelligence to get out of the treatment, information that can harm, not help, our efforts to locate and capture terrorists. Second, my amendment would require the Director of the CIA to provide a quarterly report to all members of the Intelligence Committees on the disposition of each detainee transferred out of the CIA prisons, whether the detainee was transferred to the Department of Defense for prosecution before a military commissioner for further detention, whether the detainee was transferred to the custody of the Attorney General to stand trial in civilian court, or whether the detainee was rendered or otherwise transferred to the custody of another nation. There needs to be a comprehensive and accurate accounting of detainees held by the CIA. Congress has a responsibility to know who is held by the CIA, why they are held and for how long they are held. The CIA detention and interrogation program cannot function as a black hole into which people disappear for years on end. We have been told by CIA leaders that the agency does not want to be--they say this constantly to us--they do not want to be the prison warden for the United States Government. The goal of the CIA program should be to obtain, through lawful means, intelligence information that can identify other terror suspects to prevent further terrorist attacks and then to bring to justice those who we believe to be criminals. This is the so-called endgame that everyone talks about. If the CIA detention program is allowed to function as some sort of prisoner purgatory, we have then failed. Also of concern to me is the lack of existing oversight in how the United States transports or renders detainees to other countries for imprisonment and interrogation. The limited information the administration has shared with the Senate Intelligence Committee on the CIA's rendition program does not by any means assure, at least this Senator, that the intelligence community has a program in place, so to speak, to assert what happens to these individuals when they are transferred to foreign custody, such as how they are treated, how they are interrogated, whether they divulge intelligence information of value, and whether this information is then provided to the CIA. The CIA's rendition program deserves far greater scrutiny and congressional oversight than it has been given to date. The third way in which this amendment establishes a meaningful oversight of the CIA detention and interrogation program is to require the CIA Inspector General and the CIA general counsel each separately review the program on an annual basis to report their findings to the Intelligence Committees. These independent Agency reviews would assess the CIA's compliance with any applicable law or regulation and the conduct of detention, interrogation and rendition activities as well as to report to Congress any violations of law or other abuse on the part of personnel involved in the program. The annual reviews of the Inspector General and the general counsel also would evaluate the effectiveness of the detention and interrogation program; effectiveness at obtaining valuable and reliable intelligence. Finally, my amendment requires the Attorney General to submit to Congress an unclassified certification whether or not each interrogation technique approved for use by the CIA complies with the United States Constitution and all applicable treaties, statutes and regulations. I believe this is a very important certification. All Americans, not just the Congress, need an ironclad assurance from our Nation's top enforcement officer that the CIA program and the interrogation techniques it employs are lawful in all respects. The CIA officers in the field, I might say, above all, need this assurance. I do not believe there is anything particularly controversial about this amendment, and I hope that Democrats and Republicans alike can embrace the need for restoring respect for the oversight role of the Intelligence Committees of the Congress over intelligence. Only through reports that will be provided under this amendment will the Congress have the information it lawfully deserves to understand the CIA's detention and interrogation program and determine whether the program is producing the unique intelligence mission that justifies its continued operation. Only when the President works with the Congress are we able to craft intelligence programs that are legally sound and operationally effective. Only when the President works with the Congress can America stand strong in its fight against terrorism. Intelligence gathering through interrogation is one of the most important tools we have in the war on terrorism. My amendment would provide the congressional oversight necessary to assure that our intelligence officers in the field have clear guidelines for effective and legal interrogation. Before yielding the floor, I will address two other matters very briefly. Those who have taken the time to read through the bill we are debating will find the word ``coercion'' repeatedly in the text of the legislation. Coercion is a fitting word when considering how the Senate finds itself rushed into voting on a bill with far-reaching legal and national security implications. The final text of the underlying bill was negotiated by a handful of Republican Senators, many of whom I respect, and the White House. Democrats were not consulted. I was not consulted. This Senator was not consulted. Senator Levin was not consulted. We were kept out of these closed-door sessions. I say that because the Senate Intelligence Committee is the only Senate committee responsible for authorizing CIA activities and the only committee briefed on classified details of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. We were denied an opportunity to consider this bill, in fact, on sequential referral, which is our due. In the mad dash to pass this bill before the Senate recesses, Senators are being given only five opportunities, I believe, to amend the bill, effectively preventing the Senate from trying to produce the best bill possible on the most important subject possible with respect to the gathering of intelligence. It does not have to be this way. Finally, I am troubled by what I view as misleading statements about the current state of the CIA detention and interrogation program made by President Bush and senior administration officials. I say this for the record, and strongly. The President and others have stated in recent weeks that the CIA program was halted as a result of the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision on June 29, 2006. This assertion is false. Significant aspects of this program were halted following the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees, well before the Supreme Court decision. The President has also been very forceful in his public statements asserting that the post-Hamdan application of Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 has created legal uncertainties about the CIA interrogation procedures that the Congress must resolve through legislation--only us--in order for the CIA program to continue. This assertion is misleading, and it is false as well. Concerns over the legal exposure of CIA officers have existed since the program's inception and did not begin with the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision. These mischaracterizations illustrate to me why it is important for Congress to understand all facts about the CIA program. Congress cannot and should not sit on the sidelines blithely ignorant about the details of a critical intelligence program that has been operating without meaningful congressional scrutiny for years. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is simply not true.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, my amendment would require, as I explained this morning, the CIA to provide the Congressional Intelligence Committees, which are required by law to be informed of what is going on in the intelligence world, fully the most basic and fundamental information it needs to oversee the CIA detention and interrogation program. Frankly, for the past 4 years we have not had that information. The administration has withheld this information from us. I am not saying that in partisan fashion. It is a fact. It has been very frustrating as a member of the Intelligence Committee, much less as a Member of the Senate. We have made repeated requests and the Intelligence Committee has been prevented from carefully reviewing the program. The program has operated, as a result, without any meaningful congressional oversight whatsoever, and that is our responsibility under the law. All of my colleagues should be troubled by this fact. We cannot assure ourselves, we cannot assure the American people, and we cannot assure our agents overseas that the CIA program is both legally sound and effective, without the basic information required under my amendment. My amendment is simply about oversight and accountability, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing in the amendment would require the public disclosure of any classified document or aspect of the CIA program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, if I might speak for 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President I have a one-page summary. Some of the arguments I have heard are absolutely incredible. The fact of the matter is there isn't any reporting done. For 4 years this has gone on. People say: Just call them in; call in the head of the CIA, whoever it is, before the committee. That doesn't yield information. We have so many requests for information from the CIA that have not been responded to. They are not responsive to the committee because they don't want to be responsive to the committee, because they are directed not to be responsive to the committee, I am assuming, by the Director of the National Intelligence Office. We don't have oversight on these programs we are talking about. Anybody who suggests otherwise is wrong. I heard the opposition to the amendment say it is going to slow down the passage of the bill. Now, that is brilliant. We could have started this in a timely fashion, and all the House has to do is accept the Senate amendment, if one were to pass. In a heartbeat, it is done. So what is in that argument? The Senator from Missouri has stated--and this is very important for my colleagues to hear--that the amendment would require public disclosure of the CIA's interrogation techniques. That is categorically false--wrong. It is a dangerous thing to say. It is an irresponsible thing to say on the floor of the Senate. The reports on the CIA program would be classified and they would be sent to the congressional Intelligence Committees and them alone. So we need to get that straight right now. The information that is provided in the reports is made to sound like we are rewriting the Constitution 17 times in a hot summer's several months. This is information which has not been provided to us for 4 years, what these reports would be asked to do, and then they could taper off if we found a responsive intelligence community. But we have not been provided these in 4 years. Am I meant to be worried about that? Is it the job of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House to do oversight? Yes, it is, and we can't because they won't give us the information. The chairman can say that he and I are briefed, but that is seldom and on very discrete matters that don't cover this bill. So the Senator from Virginia, whom I obviously greatly respect, suggests this amendment is a substitute for oversight. This amendment, to the contrary, is going to allow us to do oversight, and that is my point. It is our responsibility under the law to do it. We cannot do it. We are not allowed to do it. We are systematically prevented from getting information from the people who are required by law to give it to us. That is called not being transparent, and that is called us not knowing what is going on and thus not being able to help with the war on terror. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have to start off anything I say-- and I will be short--about Jim Jeffords with the word ``friendship,'' based upon his unbelievable qualities of kindness, of goodness, of steadfastness, being the same person every day under any circumstance. We sit together. We have sat together for quite a long time on the floor of the Senate. And we talk a lot. I have the honor of talking with his staff, too, a superb staff, who adores him. The business of friendship in the Senate is underpracticed. If you know Jim Jeffords, then you know why you should take more time to know your colleagues better. Because the fact is--although it has been more so recently--it is not your politics or your party that determines how you vote, but your conscience and your sense of a moral compass that guides you. In that practice, you have to think of Jim Jeffords. He is an extraordinarily wonderful human being. He has got a ferocious sense of humor, which is always delivered very quietly. And yet he is deep, he is profound, he sort of looks like Vermont: chiseled; his nose is just the right shape. And, of course, he talks that way. But he is humble, not because he wants to be, just because he is. Nothing about his record is humble. But his nature is humble. He is gentle; and he really is. He listens, does not interrupt, does not insist on his point of view--except when it counts, and then he is unmovable. All of the subjects he has concentrated on--children, the environment, many other things that have been mentioned--there is also the matter of post-traumatic stress disorder. On the Veterans Committee, which is the one committee where I do get to--not the only committee, but I get to sit with him on that committee--he has been a champion of something which Americans still do not really understand; and that is, the ferocious nature of being wounded in war these days-- an Iraqi improvised explosive device that implants shards of metal into people that will remain there for the rest of their lives; the whole question of How does somebody rehabilitate a life? and What is the VA doing about that? Jim is all over that subject. When he switched parties to be an Independent, woe be the person who said: Switch parties from Republican to Democrat--no--Republican to Independent. And, yes, he got an enormous amount of cheering and praise based upon his moral compass. He also got a lot of death threats. Life was very hard for him for a period of time. So he understood that was going to happen. But with Jim Jeffords, the moral compass always prevails. I think it is one of the reasons all of us here respect him so, admire him so, look to him as to what the Senate ought to be. I had never heard the word ``ANWR'' until it was explained to me by Senator Jeffords. He was there early because he was thinking, as always, of our children and grandchildren, and, as they say, their children too. We always take it one generation too far, but it is true. Alternative fuels. Will the history books write about Jim Jeffords on alternative fuels? Yes, they will. Do people generally in the Senate or elsewhere know that he has spent a career working on that? Probably not. Our air; they know about that. The groundwater; they probably know about that. But his work on alternative fuels is one of the most important things he's done. The Title I, Head Start, improving the lives of children, all of that that has been talked about--Senator Harkin talked about, in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--he has always been looking ahead. Does that make him a Good Samaritan? Does that mean he is a do- gooder or does it mean that he does good? It is the second. He does what is comfortable to him and what he feels is just for the people he serves, not only in Vermont but across the United States of America. The work he has done with post-traumatic stress disorder is awesome in terms of those of us on the Veterans Committee. He is justifiably proud of the research and work done by Vermont's White River Junction Veterans' Administration Hospital to help veterans who are struggling, as they truly are, not just with the postwar physical problems of being wounded, but the psychological problems of that, as well. He has never sought the limelight, and he does not care about the limelight. He has been elected time after time probably partly because of that. Because he is not like so many other people who run for public office who want to tick off everything they have done. He is Jim Jeffords. And with Jim Jeffords comes a certain set of principles, a certain set of commitments to people. The people of Vermont have understood that over the years. So he has not had to promote himself in ways that others have to do. He has always done his work, in the words of Shakespeare, with the ``modest stillness and humility'' that becomes any human being. When you look back at his record, you can see this man from Shrewsbury, VT, has left his mark on virtually every single piece of legislation on education, job training, disability legislation, and on and on and on. Jim has always had extraordinarily deep passions and convictions, but, at the same time, he has been a paragon of civility and humbleness. Jim has a gentle voice, but his resolve and commitment to stand up for vulnerable children, veterans in need, and our environment is assertive and strong. Throughout his career, Jim has made some very tough personal decisions. Take his decision to switch parties to be an independent in the summer of 2001. Regardless which party you are a member of, I think all of us would agree that given the fact that his move fundamentally changed the governing structure of the Senate, it truly was a profile in courage. Time and time again, Jim has been willing to take risks for his beliefs, and he deserves our respect and admiration for such independence. In terms of public service, Jim Jeffords has lived a life that many aspire to. He has spent nearly every day of his life working to make the lives of people better. In the 1950s, he served in the U.S. Navy, and until 1990 he was in the Naval Reserve, where he retired as a captain. In the 1960s, he began his political service, first as a Vermont State Senator, then as Vermont's Attorney General, and then, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, he became one of the very few Republicans elected to Congress in 1974. Jim has been a true steward of the environment. Long before many of us knew what ANWR was, he was fighting to preserve the environment for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. He has been at the forefront of fighting to make sure our air and ground water are safe for our citizens, and he has fought for the use of alternative fuels. His efforts have truly cut a trailblazing path for many generations to come. Over the years, Jim and I have worked on many issues together, and I am particularly proud of what we have done for our students and for our veterans. He understands how important it is to make sure that our citizens get started on the right foot. He believes that the first years of a child's life are absolutely critical in the life and future of that person, and that is why he has worked so hard to push for greater funding for Head Start and other early education programs. And that is why he has worked on Title I--to help low-performing students, who disproportionately live in the rural areas that make up much of West Virginia and Vermont, achieve the standards they must meet. That sort of Good Samaritan principle has always guided Jim's life and career. He has been extraordinary in advocating for those whose needs are often forgotten. In fact, perhaps no American living today and certainly no American legislator--I want to echo here what Senator Harkin has said--has done more to advance the educational success of those with disabilities. Almost from his arrival in Congress. Jim took extraordinary steps because he believed that the needs of others simply could not wait. In 1975, as a House freshman, Jim co-authored what would later be known as the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. IDEA serves as a Federal commitment to give students with disabilities a better education. It was an extraordinary legislative achievement, one that had even greater implications in terms of setting a moral baseline imperative that we must meet the needs of those who live difficult lives. Jim has worked, not for the well-heeled or the heavy-hitting lobbysist--he has tirelessly worked for the people who truly need help. I have also been proud to serve with Jim on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. He has been an important voice in calling for compassionate care for our veterans, especially those veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. We both have States with a very high number of soldiers and veterans, and we both know how important it is for our soldiers and veterans to have the health care they have earned and deserve. The two of us have been allies in pushing for greater funding and resources to help our soldiers with PTSD, and I know that Jim is justifiably proud of the research and work by Vermont's White River Junction to help veterans struggling with PTSD. Jim Jeffords has never sought the limelight--he has sought results. He has always done his work in the words of Shakespeare, with the modest stillness and humility that becomes any human. But when one looks back at his record, you can see that the modest man from Shrewsbury, VT, has left his mark on virtually every piece of education, job training, and disability legislation over the past quarter century. It is difficult to determine how many people Jim's efforts have helped, but if it were possible to quantify his efforts, I know we would find that hundreds of thousands of lives have been improved because of his actions in Vermont and across the country. The Senate this year is losing a treasure, a man who in the best tradition of the Senate has never been afraid of taking heroic, principled stand without having to make a lot of noise. Sharon and I are personally losing good friends in Jim and his wife Liz. And Americans all over the country are losing one of the most dedicated fighters for the basic rights that too many disadvantaged people are shortchanged on. I wish my friend well in his retirement. I close with the sadness of losing in our body somebody such as Senator Jeffords. People go to him. People are comforted by his presence. People are emboldened by his nature. They see what it is he does not say to promote himself or his ideas, and somehow they are attracted to those ideas because they understand if it comes out of Jim Jeffords, it is good for the public. So I think of his family too, I say to Senator Boxer, and I think of how proud they must be. I also think of just myself, to be honest, how sad I am going to be not being able to sit next to Jim Jeffords and share his humor and to look upon his greatness--not just his nose, but his greatness: the classic Vermonter, the classic New Englander. He has been so incredibly good for the Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I support S. 3525, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act. This is a bill that will reauthorize the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, legislation that I have worked on since its creation in 1997. I am proud to join my colleagues Senators Grassley, Baucus, Hatch and Snowe in support of this bill. Chairman Grassley deserves our deep thanks and gratitude for real leadership on this legislation and a truly bipartisan process. The Finance Committee has a strong history of bipartisanship on child welfare and foster care. And I should note that this bipartisanship is palpable at the staff level as well and the fine staff of the Finance Committee also deserve our thanks for making this agreement possible. The children at risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes are among our most vulnerable children. Over the years, progress has been made to promote each child's safety, health and need for a permanent, safe home. But with 518,000 in foster care, there is clearly more work to be done for our children. The 2006 Deficit Reduction Act included an additional $40 million per year provided for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. Our legislation will target this new money to clear needs for our child welfare system. One priority will be to create new competitive grants to support regional partnership to combat methamphetamine, ``meth,'' or other drug abuses that are affecting the child welfare system. Meth is devastating areas in West Virginia and around our country. When law enforcement breaks up a home meth lab, child welfare workers are often needed on site to deal with the children as their parents are taken to jail. Such children have been exposed to toxins and are at risk of having been abused or neglected when their parents were high on meth. Substance abuse is a huge problem for families in the child welfare system, but there is hope that prevention and treatment can help. Family-based comprehensive long term treatment facilities are reporting some impressive results in helping children and families. Other innovative court projects and law enforcement programs are being developed. This bill invests real dollars to promote and evaluate the most effective programs. The other priority of this legislation will be to make new investments to help states achieve what is considered the best practice of having monthly caseworker visits to 90 percent of the children in foster care. This standard helps improve outcomes for our most vulnerable children, and it is a worthy goal. The bill will also reauthorize and expand the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, created in 2002 as part of the reauthorization. The expansion is a 3-year pilot program to use vouchers as a new delivery mechanism for services in the hope of helping children in rural and underserved areas. Three States, West Virginia, Vermont and Utah, do not have any Mentoring Children of Prisoners grants, but there are children living there and in rural areas who need a mentor. Under the voucher program, qualified mentoring programs in local communities could get funding to serve such children. This is worth trying as a new model. Earlier this year, I hosted a roundtable in Beckley, WV on adoption, foster care and child welfare. I met with a judge, local officials and parents involved in our system. I heard an inspiring story of a young man who was adopted from foster care and has become a spokesperson for other children. Following this roundtable, it was very clear to me that we need to provide support and services to families in the system, and this new legislation should help. For years, I have worked with my colleagues to try and improve our child welfare system and foster care. This bill is our next step forward. Its costs have been offset, and the priorities of combating meth and substance abuse, as well as more caseworker visits are goals that we all can rally to support. My hope is that this bill will provide the incentives and push for West Virginia and every state to do more for our most vulnerable children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect the vital health insurance coverage that millions of our Nation's children receive through the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). As I stand here today, at least 17 States face looming Federal funding shortfalls of as much as $900 million, the cost of covering more than half a million children. Mr. Dingell, the distinguished ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and I have worked for several weeks to craft a bill that reflects the intentions of this program when it was first created nearly ten years ago: to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage for children. Additionally, this legislation addresses an ongoing set of challenges associated with the program's block grant financing structure. I am pleased to report that Mr. Dingell and others will be introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives today. We are introducing the Keep Children Covered Act now because it is critically important that we consider and pass this legislation before we adjourn this year. No one can dispute the success of the CHIP program in enrolling and providing coverage for more then 6 million children nationwide. In 2005, West Virginia provided coverage for more then 38,000 children, and an expansion to reach additional children is currently underway. This is quite an accomplishment. But, the ongoing success of this program depends on adequate Federal funding for all States. It is a sad truth that persistent barriers to health care coverage have resulted in annual increases in the total number of uninsured Americans. Today, 46 million Americans are uninsured for all or most of the year. I am particularly troubled in that, in 2005, the number of uninsured children increased for the first time since the CHIP program was implemented in 1998. The number of uninsured children now stands at 8.3 million. This is unacceptable. We have taken a significant step back in terms of covering children, and this will only get worse if the $900 million Federal funding shortfall is not immediately addressed. Children are the least expensive group to insure, and our future depends on their good health and well-being. There is clear evidence that children with consistent access to health care services are more likely to become healthy adults and successful members of our communities. Like West Virginia, a number of States have expressed their willingness to expand the CHIP program, but we must hold up our end of the bargain and supply them with the resources necessary to make these positive changes. It would be irresponsible for us to allow additional children to go without this much needed access to care. It would also run counter to the goals Congress set out when we created CHIP in 1997. Preserving health care coverage for children is not an objective beyond our reach. Although it represents only a temporary fix of the larger funding issues facing CHIP, the bill I am introducing today will alleviate the fiscal year 2007 shortfalls and ensure that children currently enrolled in CHIP do not lose their coverage. I congratulate my colleagues on the House side, Congressmen Deal and Norwood, who introduced similar legislation at the end of last week. They understand this is something we can come together on, pass, and enact into law before Congress recesses for the elections. It is my hope that Congress will act on a bipartisan basis to more comprehensively address the long-term financial challenges facing CHIP when the program is reauthorized next year. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to make children's health care a priority during the limited time we have left this session. Working families depend on this program in order to access the health care services--like check-ups and prescriptions--that their children need. I hope we will not let them down. We should not. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect the vital health insurance coverage that millions of our Nation's children receive through the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). As I stand here today, at least 17 States face looming Federal funding shortfalls of as much as $900 million, the cost of covering more than half a million children. Mr. Dingell, the distinguished ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and I have worked for several weeks to craft a bill that reflects the intentions of this program when it was first created nearly ten years ago: to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage for children. Additionally, this legislation addresses an ongoing set of challenges associated with the program's block grant financing structure. I am pleased to report that Mr. Dingell and others will be introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives today. We are introducing the Keep Children Covered Act now because it is critically important that we consider and pass this legislation before we adjourn this year. No one can dispute the success of the CHIP program in enrolling and providing coverage for more then 6 million children nationwide. In 2005, West Virginia provided coverage for more then 38,000 children, and an expansion to reach additional children is currently underway. This is quite an accomplishment. But, the ongoing success of this program depends on adequate Federal funding for all States. It is a sad truth that persistent barriers to health care coverage have resulted in annual increases in the total number of uninsured Americans. Today, 46 million Americans are uninsured for all or most of the year. I am particularly troubled in that, in 2005, the number of uninsured children increased for the first time since the CHIP program was implemented in 1998. The number of uninsured children now stands at 8.3 million. This is unacceptable. We have taken a significant step back in terms of covering children, and this will only get worse if the $900 million Federal funding shortfall is not immediately addressed. Children are the least expensive group to insure, and our future depends on their good health and well-being. There is clear evidence that children with consistent access to health care services are more likely to become healthy adults and successful members of our communities. Like West Virginia, a number of States have expressed their willingness to expand the CHIP program, but we must hold up our end of the bargain and supply them with the resources necessary to make these positive changes. It would be irresponsible for us to allow additional children to go without this much needed access to care. It would also run counter to the goals Congress set out when we created CHIP in 1997. Preserving health care coverage for children is not an objective beyond our reach. Although it represents only a temporary fix of the larger funding issues facing CHIP, the bill I am introducing today will alleviate the fiscal year 2007 shortfalls and ensure that children currently enrolled in CHIP do not lose their coverage. I congratulate my colleagues on the House side, Congressmen Deal and Norwood, who introduced similar legislation at the end of last week. They understand this is something we can come together on, pass, and enact into law before Congress recesses for the elections. It is my hope that Congress will act on a bipartisan basis to more comprehensively address the long-term financial challenges facing CHIP when the program is reauthorized next year. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to make children's health care a priority during the limited time we have left this session. Working families depend on this program in order to access the health care services--like check-ups and prescriptions--that their children need. I hope we will not let them down. We should not. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the chairman yield for another question?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is correct.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, first of all, I totally appreciate and totally do not deserve the kind comments of our leader from the State of Nevada, but I heard them and I won't forget them and I didn't mind them at all. Before the Senate Intelligence Committee was able to release last week two sections of phase II that we have been working on in prewar intelligence in Iraq, we submitted the report to the intelligence community for declassification review. Overall, the declassification process on the phase II report produced a final product that was a substantial improvement, I have to say, over past efforts, including the committee's heavily redacted July 2004 phase I report. Yet there were notable instances of overclassification in the final phase II report released September 8. The committee, in its report, disagreed with the intelligence community's decision to classify certain portions of the report's findings and conclusions. In its decision to keep this information from the public, which is what this is about, the intelligence community was unable to demonstrate to the committee that disclosing the redacted-- that is, what is blacked-out--the redacted information in question would compromise sensitive sources and methods or otherwise harm the national security. The committee, therefore, on a bipartisan basis, concluded in its report, which was reported out unanimously, that the intelligence community's decision to classify this information that we are talking about is without justification. Those are the words in the report, ``without justification.'' The Reid-Rockefeller-Levin amendment addresses the most egregious instance in the committee's Iraq report where the cloak of classification is being used improperly to keep critical information from the American people. Specifically, the amendment seeks to overturn the intelligence community's unjustified decision to classify it--that is what this amendment is trying to do--and not only overturn, but the unjustified decision to classify in its totality the section of the Iraq report referring to a CIA document about the alleged meeting in Prague between 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer. As the unclassified text of the committee report states, the CIA document referenced in these redacted paragraphs expresses concerns about the alleged Prague meeting in the context of a public speech by President Bush planned for March 14, 2003. For the information of Senators, the committee concluded in its September 8 Iraq report that the intelligence community was correct when it assessed prior to the war that there was no credible information--I repeat, no credible information--that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the United States or any other al-Qaida strike. The committee also concluded in its report, after exhaustive review of relevant intelligence reporting, that the alleged Atta meeting in Prague did not occur. Significant portions of the redacted passage of the report concerning the alleged Atta meeting, if not the entire three paragraphs, can be declassified without revealing sources and methods--that is, without compromising in any way intelligence--or otherwise harming national security. The decision to keep from the public--the public of the Senate, the public of the United States of America--this revealing information about the use of intelligence information prior to the Iraq war represents an improper use of classification authority by the intelligence community, the effect of which is to shield the White House. I urge my colleagues to go to the Intelligence Committee offices and read the classified portions of the Iraq report--Senators can do that; all Senators can do that, do it in those particular rooms, and they can do it freely--including the sections dealing with the alleged Atta meeting. Senators should read the report and draw their own conclusions about whether information known prior to the war is being kept from the American people for reasons unrelated to protecting national security.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am happy to.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I would say to the Senator from Illinois that he is correct, it does contradict that, and moreover this contradiction has been carried on by a number of high officials in this Government for a very long period of time in spite of intelligence which they knew which said this meeting never took place.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. What the CIA Director reportedly is saying, and the chairman of the full committee indicates, is that operational cables cannot be identified publicly. I am saying that they are identified 30 times in our two reports. I direct my colleagues' attention to these 30 specific examples from the committee's two reports found on page 31 of the report on Post War Findings and pages 41, 43, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 86, 87, 104, and 107 of the INC report.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. In closing, I urge my colleagues to not only read the information blacked out, redacted--those are pages 96, 97, and 98-- read those of the report, but also to consider it in the context of the unclassified, publicly released section on the alleged Atta meeting in Prague that precedes these pages. It sounds complicated, but it is not. Just go read it and you will understand. I think Senators will find the information classified by the administration on these three pages does not involve intelligence sources and methods as much as it does provide insight into the warning bells that were going off all over about the alleged Atta meeting in the context of a Presidential speech a week before the Iraq war commenced. This is information on the use of prewar intelligence which the White House does not want the American public to have because it would be embarrassing. The Senate cannot allow this misuse of classification authority to stand. I urge my colleagues to support the Reid-Rockefeller-Levin amendment. Mr. President, I once again thank the minority leader and yield the floor. (At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the chairman of the full committee, is the Senator aware that on page 31, the prewar assessment part of the report, there is a reference at the bottom, as I indicated, to the CIA operational cable of December 20, 2002. The Senator indicated the substance is not included, but I will read from the report: In addition, the Committee is examining the facts surrounding a December 20, 2002, cable from the relevant CIA station [this is all available to the American public today] which transmitted comments from a letter to the DCI and a discussion with the Chief of Station from the head of the foreign intelligence service that handled CURVE BALL. The cable noted that the head of the foreign intelligence service intelligence said experts from a number of foreign intelligence services had analyzed the CURVE BALL information and believed ``the information was plausible''--et cetera, et cetera. In other words, the content is right here.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Thank you very much. I am sure that the Senator is aware, having talked about the importance of the operational cables, the foreign service, and all these kinds of things that there are in our report--or in the report there are at least 30 specific references to operational cables. I am looking at page 31 of the prewar assessment part. CIA operational table, December 2002, the INC part. And there are two on page 68--two CIA cable references that are declassified. Is the Senator aware of that, that we have done this 30 times at least in our report?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is correct. But there are 30 in various parts of this that are operational cables specifically referred to, which are----

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the National Security Agency has been wiretapping the conversations of Americans without obtaining court orders, as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, for the past 5 years. In recent months, a number of bills have been proposed which would codify the President's program of warrantless surveillance. The White House is now pushing the Senate Judiciary Committee to pass sweeping legislation that would amend FISA and grant the President unprecedented authority to undertake wiretapping in the United States without the judicial scrutiny currently required by law. For Congress to legislate on this program in the coming days would not only be premature but irresponsible. The fact remains that despite repeated assurances from the administration, Members of Congress remain in the dark and cannot answer fundamental questions about the program's existence, effectiveness or legal justification. As one of the few Members who have received the most detailed information to date. I can tell you that, putting aside the legal argument, the administration has not been able to document convincingly the counterterrorism benefits of the program. In fact for the past 6 months, I have been requesting, without success, specific details about the program including how many terrorists have been identified, how many arrested, how many convicted, and how many terrorists have been deported or killed as a direct result of information obtained through the warrantless wiretapping program. I can assure you, not one person in Congress has the answers to these fundamental questions. At the same time, let me be perfectly clear, I support all efforts to track down terrorists wherever they are using all of our best technology and resources. But it can and must be done legally and in a way that protects the rights of all Americans. For 4\1/2\ years, the President had restricted knowledge of this program to the top leaders of the Senate and House and the two top leaders on the congressional Intelligence Committees. By limiting the briefings to 2 of the 15 Intelligence Committee members, the White House had sought to prevent the committee from conducting the legally required oversight of the NSA program. Because of this restriction on access to the program, the committee has been effectively prevented from knowing about the program, evaluating the program, and acting on the program. Frankly, I believe the White House goal of the past 5 years has been to use the iron cloak of secrecy to keep Congress ignorant of and powerless to challenge a controversial program of suspect legality. The repeated representations by the President and senior administration officials that the warrantless wiretapping program was and is subject to extensive congressional oversight are simply outrageous. Entire committees, not individual Senators, report out legislation that authorizes and funds intelligence collection programs. The full Senate, not individual Senators, takes action to approve or reject this legislation. The White House wanted a warrantless wiretapping program that was exempt from the scrutiny of both the courts and the Congress, even if it meant ignoring the legal requirements of FISA and the National Security Acts and shattering what had been decades of responsible, bipartisan congressional oversight of intelligence programs. Why? Administration officials have stated that the fact that the NSA was collecting the communications of suspected terrorists coming in or out of the United States without a court's determination that probable cause existed was simply too sensitive to disclose to the other Members of Congress intimating that the congressional Intelligence Committees could not keep aspects of the program classified. I would remind this administration that the Intelligence Committee is entrusted on a daily basis with the secrets that if disclosed would irreparably harm our national security, compromise multibillion-dollar collection programs, and even get people killed. There are 15 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and many more of my colleagues who at an earlier time served on the committee. All Senators, by right of their elected position and the duties they are sworn to carry out have access to the details of these highly classified collection programs. It is a sobering responsibility but members of our committee and the Senate as a whole have protected these secrets because each of us understands what is at stake. In fact, as someone who has been briefed on the NSA wiretapping program, I can assure may colleagues that the sensitivity of the program pales in comparison with other intelligence activities our committee oversees on a routine basis. My colleagues should be troubled by the fact that the only NSA intelligence collection program that the White House has directed be described in detail publicly is also the only NSA program the White House continues to withhold from the full Senate. I want my colleagues to consider the implications of this carefully. At a time when terrorism is the No. 1 threat to America's security, the White House has decided that Congress cannot be trusted with the job of protecting our citizens. Instead of working with Congress, the President decided with an almost imperial disdain to ignore the constitutional role the legislative branch plays in providing for the National defense. It wasn't until March 9 of this year, and after enormous pressure, that the administration agreed to allow five additional committee members and three staffers to be briefed into the program. Another 2 months would pass before the White House agreed with our request that the entire committee membership be apprised of the program's operations. However, contrary to public statements in recent months by the President and Vice President that Congress is being fully briefed, I am dismayed to report that this administration continues to pursue its policy of depriving the Congress the information it needs to understand and evaluate the NSA program's legal underpinnings, operational conduct, and usefulness in identifying and arresting terrorists. On February 23, 2006, I wrote to NSA Director GEN Keith Alexander, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte requesting documents and information about the NSA program, including the Presidential orders authorizing the program, legal reviews and opinions relating to the program, procedures and guidelines on the use of information obtained through the program, and specifics about the counterterrorism benefits of the program. This letter was followed up with a second more refined request on May 15 of 54 items based on briefings the committee had recently received. The May letter repeated my earlier request for basic documentation and information, such as the Presidential authorization orders, which are essential in order for the Intelligence Committee to fully understand and thoroughly evaluate the NSA program, a necessary step before considering whether legislation relating to the program or amending FISA is needed. Over 6 months have passed since I sent my original February letter and the Intelligence Committee has not received the requested information. During this time, I and my staff director repeatedly raised the issue of the delinquent replies with White House and administration officials, including a direct appeal I made to Director Negroponte in July. Six months and no response from the administration. This is simply unacceptable. Three days after I met with Director Negroponte and expressed my concerns about the lack of a response to the February and May requests for documents and information, the Intelligence Committee received a fax from the NSA's Office of General Counsel forwarding ``a set of administration-approved unclassified talking points for members to use.'' The cover page of the fax included comments indicating that the talking points were prepared in response to questions from committee members about what could be said publicly about the NSA program. When I read the talking points, I was stunned to find that the NSA provided political talking points. Instead of providing the requested assistance in delineating what is and what is not classified about the program, the talking points contain subjective statements intended to advance a particular policy view and present the NSA program in the best possible light. Instead of providing the committee with the documents and information requested a half year earlier and allowing the committee to complete its own review of the NSA program and to draw its own independent conclusions, the administration preferred telling committee members what to think and what to say. The administration-approved talking points encouraged Senators to make statements such as ``I can say that the Program must continue; It is being run in a highly disciplined way,'' and ``There is strict oversight in place both at NSA and outside, now including the full congressional committees.'' The talking points also argue for changes to FISA claiming ``Current law is not agile enough to handle the threat'' and ``The FISA should be amended so that it is technologically neutral.'' These statements were intended to advocate the White House policy line rather than provide guidance on classification. Even before the intelligence committee can finish its own review of the NSA program the administration attempted to use the members of the intelligence committee--the only committee witting of the program's details--as mouthpieces to parrot conclusive statements in support of White House policy. These talking points are the latest examples of how the administration has co-opted an agency of the intelligence community to keep information from Congress in support of a controversial policy or program. Our committee has run into this disturbing practice with respect to the administration's program for the detention, interrogation and rendition of individuals suspected on involvement with terrorism as well. The White House's unwillingness to provide requested information to the Congress on the detention and interrogation program for many years created a void in congressional oversight, eventually filled by the courts and the Hamdan decision earlier this year. In this case, the administration took the calculated risk that it could go it alone, without working with Congress, and they guessed wrong. Now faced with a court decision not to its liking, the White House is coming to Congress seeking a legislative remedy. Evidently, the administration has failed to learn the lessons of this go-it-alone approach. The documents I requested of the NSA, Justice Department, and Office of the DNI 6 months ago have been withheld at the direction of the White House. The administration is trying to run out the clock on my requests in the hopes that Congress can be manipulated to pass legislation this session authorizing a program it does not fully understand. At the same time, a simple request of the NSA to detail what is and is not classified about the warrantless surveillance program is forced to go through the White House and, as a result, turned into a litany of administration P.R. statements. I and six other members of the Intelligence Committee wrote to NSA Director Alexander last month expressing our concerns over the appropriateness of these administration-approved talking points and objecting to the requirement that the NSA must clear with the White House any requested information about its own program before it is sent to Congress. We also asked that Director Alexander review this incident and provided the committee in writing an explanation of by whom and on what authority these talking points were prepared, who approved of their distribution to members of the Intelligence Committee, and who made the decision that they should be cleared by the administration prior to being provided to committee members. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the administration-approved NSA talking points, faxed to the Intelligence Committee on July 27, 2006, the August 29, 2006, letter to NSA Director Gen. Alexander signed by me and Senators Levin, Feinstein, Wyden, Bayh, Mikulski, and Feingold, and the September 1, 2006, response from General Alexander.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is clear to me that the administration's withholding of documents is designed to hamper the Intelligence Committee's review of the NSA program. Up to this point, information provided to the committee in briefings held since March has been filtered and generalized through charts and slides. My attempts to obtain original documents, such as the Presidential authorizations, and to ask questions that go beyond these administration-approved briefings have been ignored. This refusal to respond to legitimate information requests from the Oversight Committee, combined with the administration's over- restriction of member and staff access to the NSA program, is part of a cynical White House strategy to prevent Congress from either acting or forcing it to legislate on vital national security and privacy issues in the dark. Twenty of the 100 currently serving Senators have been briefed on the NSA program at one point or another in the past 5 years. The White House currently allows only three members of the Intelligence Committee staff--two Republican staffers and one Democrat--to have access to the NSA program. By contrast, there are well over a thousand employees at the NSA, CIA, FBI, Justice Department, Office of DNI, Pentagon and White House briefed into the NSA program. I want my colleagues to take note of this disparity. Twenty Senators and three staffers compared with over a thousand executive branch employees. If, in the remaining weeks of this session, the full Senate is asked to consider legislation to revise FISA or authorize aspects of the NSA warrantless surveillance program, it is untenable--if not unprecedented--to keep four-fifths of the Senate ignorant of why the changes are justified or what intelligence activities they are authorizing. The Senate should insist that all Members be allowed to understand the NSA wiretapping program--with the appropriate care being taken to protect the remaining classified aspects not already acknowledged by the President--and be given the chance to draw their own conclusions about whether it is justified. Finally, General Hayden and others have publicly stated that no legal concerns have been raised within the administration about the operation of the NSA program. Limited information presented to the committee contradicts this assertion. But the committee has been prevented from understanding the details and context of these internal debates about the program's legality due to the administration's stonewalling. I urge my colleagues--we must insist on a full accounting of the NSA's ongoing 5-year program before acting on legislation that gives the President the authority to wiretap the phone conversations of Americans where a court has not determined that a probable cause standard has been met. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, may I proceed?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the President pro tempore.